Though I was invited to review the whitepaper, it seems all my questions remains unanswered. And section "4.1 Resistance to quantum computations" (added after my review?) seems pretty controversial by its reasoning. Anyway, Popov's work is the deepest made on DAG cryptocurrencies(all I've seen before were just forum & blog posts), I'm not sure what's presented enough to make something production-ready though. Let's see what will happen here. Have luck guys!

Sorry, maybe I didn't see a question, sometimes Skype messages are not delivered. Here is the complete transcript of our conversation, did I miss anything:

Code:

[16.10.2015 20:40:19] David: Alex, when you're on leave the feedback in this channel[16.10.2015 22:08:27] sandylabs: hi guys[16.10.2015 22:08:49] Come-from-Beyond: hi[16.10.2015 22:09:30] sandylabs: so well, the attack section is starting sharply, and it's proposing as is fact contradicting txs could live in DAG[16.10.2015 22:09:52] sandylabs: a lot of interesting things possible with that aside of double-spending[16.10.2015 22:10:10] sandylabs: say e.g. I'm submitting two contradicting txs simultaneously[16.10.2015 22:10:38] sandylabs: then with 1/2 probability one of them will have more weight(so be more true?)[16.10.2015 22:11:00] sandylabs: and in next round another could be leader[16.10.2015 22:11:33] sandylabs: so we're going to a system with potentially unstable view(existing for a long time)[16.10.2015 22:14:28] Come-from-Beyond: The rule is to reject transactions that reference contradicting transactions.[16.10.2015 22:15:10] sandylabs: Am I missing something in paper?[16.10.2015 22:16:15] Come-from-Beyond: no[16.10.2015 22:16:27] sandylabs: ah[16.10.2015 22:16:28] sandylabs: so[16.10.2015 22:16:38] sandylabs: I'm just reviewing the paper[16.10.2015 22:20:36] Come-from-Beyond: aye, I'm explaning how that attack is counteracted. the paper is a draft and doesn't contain all the stuff[16.10.2015 22:21:21] sandylabs: ok so why contradicting txs are possible in the paper?[16.10.2015 22:23:00] Come-from-Beyond: is it specified explicitly?[16.10.2015 22:25:49] sandylabs: section on attack scenarios[16.10.2015 22:26:37] Come-from-Beyond: it's the whole DAG that can contain conflicting state[16.10.2015 22:27:07] Come-from-Beyond: but none of the transactions can reference directly or indirectly conflicting transactions[16.10.2015 22:27:22] Come-from-Beyond: conflict is possible if there are more than 1 tip[19.10.2015 12:48:16] sandylabs: So Sergey(mthcl), it would be good to see coverage on that[19.10.2015 12:48:32] sandylabs: and in this case mb it's worth to move[19.10.2015 12:49:12] sandylabs: "3.1 How fast the cumulative weight typically grow?" into an appendix

Here's a really stupid question. As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? How do I benefit from this? There was what IoT seems like to me from another post. Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom. Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around. People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder. In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system. Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder. Everyone will be tracked like cattle.

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT". All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Here's a really stupid question. As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? How do I benefit from this? There was what IoT seems like to me from another post. Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom. Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around. People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder. In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system. Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder. Everyone will be tracked like cattle.

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT". All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

Here's a really stupid question. As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? How do I benefit from this? There was what IoT seems like to me from another post. Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom. Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around. People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder. In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system. Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder. Everyone will be tracked like cattle.

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT". All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Well I guess if you quote yourself then it must be true as you've never been wrong before. Right?

Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

Well said.

Don't bother trying to convince Debbie Downer. She's too busy building her tinfoil hat. Besides, you can't reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.

CFB, actually our "tree" resembled more of a DAG, but I didn't have a better name for it at the time, trees seemed to be a good enough explanation.

Anyway we don't use either anymore as we moved on to channels at the end of 2014, which is more of a hybrid between a chain and a DAG. It can leverage the properties of a DAG structure when required, yet apply the fundamentals of a chain for other requirements. Channels then live in partitions, and partitions float about the network and use various meta data which resides in a special global channel we call the LAC (Live Action Channel) to ensure alignment and consistency among partitions (so that one partition isn't doing something that violates another) .

There are some differences between the 2 innovations though, pure DAG can do some stuff that channels cant, and vice versa, for example:

One thing I love about DAGs (and miss from our channel stuff) is handling network splitting, where a sub-portion of the network can operate independently from the main net, then rejoin later at a later time. DAGs can do this very well, channels not so much.

On the flip side, a DAG is fast but only to a point (one of the main reasons we dropped it) as its a vertical scale, channels and partitions can scale horizontal to many 100,000s tps with sufficient network size.

Similarities, DAGs and channels both lend themselves to more efficient consensus methods, high performance verification, lighter resource use and a bunch of other things.

IMO choosing between the 2 depends entirely on what it is you want to achieve, both are however, better technologies than pure chains.

Here's a really stupid question. As a regular human being on the planet earth, why exactly do I want IoT to be invented in the first place? How do I benefit from this? There was what IoT seems like to me from another post. Basically me walking or driving around and having the government attacking me with surveillance and microtransactions:

Like everything in this world: there are two sides. Any technological breakthrough can be used positively and negatively from nuclear energy and nuclear bombs to anonymity and complete surveillance in ledger technology. Usually the benefits outweigh the potential nefarious use-cases. IoT will bring about a revolution in virtually every field from medicine to comfort. IoT will happen no matter what you do, you can try to Ted Kaczynski it away, but it wont happen. The benefits are simply too great. IOTA want to enable a decentral payment method between these devices and give power back to users.

I don't think nuclear power is a valid comparison because I see IoT lending itself far more towards a surveillance state than anything else. It's not like choosing between energy and bombs. IoT is inherently kind of an anti-privacy function because it's purpose is to broadcast, communicate, and interact with other devices. Once you talk about bringing payments into the equation, that brings human on and off ramps to correlate all data with.

One of it's main functions will be to try and force internet users to subsidize websites with micro transactions for content instead of advertising. Those micro payments will be correlated with unique human identifiers in the end and probably parlayed into some kind of internet ID card.